The great debate; fashion and fur... though not exactly how you might think

This is a rather odd post to begin my blogging career with, but considering domestic pets are often seen as a fashion commodity- (referring to those who carry the small yapper type dogs in ridiculously expensive handbags), then I feel it’s presence to be valid none the less. 

In recent news, a ‘crazy goth girl’ in America has been charged with ‘Animal cruelty’ after piercing her cats ears and other parts of their little furry bodies.

The Daily Mail described the kittens as 'maimed and disfigured' after some of the animals were pierced up to ten times because the owner decided the resulting appearance was ‘neat’, (although scrutiny for the word ‘neat’ could very well be in order; that is an issue that will have to wait on the sidelines for now). 

As you can probably guess, most people with a certain level of intelligence and moral coding were outraged by this, and I imagine that there is already a Facebook group set up, to demonstrate such anger with numerous angry smilies dotted all over the wall. 

However, it got me thinking, why is this actually wrong? Because the animal is defenseless right? 

So why is it that it is not deemed cruel to pierce the ears of human babies? They are defenseless too are they not? 

You see it all the time, Mum’s with numerous cigarettes sticking out of their faces, whilst juggling their pride and joy (bottle of White Lightning), as well as a naive new born in their arms, their little ears glistening with the latest Argos tat... and all in the name of ‘fashion'. 

Why are these women not charged with something? Is a baby of five months actually capable of communicating a desire to be shot in the side of the head with a piercing gun? 

No.

Thinking about this particular variety of parent has lead me on to thinking about cows; we pierce the farm animals with pretty yellow tags as a method of identification, which although could be argued as a practical necessity, is still a vague form or animal cruelty.

So I think the main idea that I have concluded from this ‘topical’ discussion is simply this; if there is a rule in place protecting one animal, then surely it should protect them all- regardless of the cute factor, or not be in place at all. 

Elements of fashion such as ‘piercing’ should only be allowed to be practiced upon someone of sound mind and who can verbally confirm that it is a personal desire for the foreign object to be stapled to their body and not simply a decision made by someone who thinks it’s ‘neat’ (feel free to swap this word for another positive adjective).